Considering all the other attempts to remove him from state ballots have failed, is this really something to expend time and money and political capital on to tilt at a windmill?
I really like Nebraska, and the split electoral votes, but we are still only about 1% of the vote for POTUS. Ms Blood is perhaps setting up campaigning slogans and claims for the next election?
The pres debate went exactly as expected. Trump cane in, lied, and wanted and raved like a lunatic. Boden came in answered some stuff coherently and was in a sleepy daze for most of it. Still better off with a dazed stiff then a lying lunatic fraudster. How and the hell did we get here as a nation. 300+ million people in this country and this is what we get for choices. Problem is no sane person want the job of president of the United states. It's a thankless job. So the only ones that will really run are egotistical wealthy bastards.
I knew Flood's position was weak but I didn't know it was that weak.
Granted, Republican dumbasses wouldn't know a "Commie" if it bit them in their fat asses.
It isn't about knowing what communism is. It's the same as what "woke" has become: A boogeyman word that signals to the group that they should think something is bad.
Shit, there's a guy at the bar I tend who thinks I'm a communist because I thought it was indefensible when that group of cops beat some guy to death, in sight of his home, because he freaked out and ran from a traffic stop. Apparently thinking punishments should match the offense is communism now.
Yeah that's sounds about right. And they wonder why we just roll our eyes and say "you're an idiot".
They can't argue or understand in good faith so what's the damn point?
Yeah, I used to follow the news more closely so I'd have answers to their questions thinking they were genuinely wondering what was right.
I don't bother anymore. If they have to ask "What's ONE thing Trump lied about?!", they won't care what comes next, even if it's Trump himself admitting he lied.
They don't have to listen to me, the media...anything. All they have to do is watch his speeches...they make no sense. He contradicts himself all the time.
I have zero doubts Trump would be worse than the corpse of Joe Biden if elected.
But try to block him from running, and I fear there will literally be blood in the streets.
But after the "debate" I'm seriously just dreading November. How the FUCK is Joe Biden the best the DNC can come up with. It was a complete 180 from last time, when Biden just let Trump dig himself into holes, this time Biden torpedoed his own ship. Couldn't string together coherent sentences, and looked completely vacant the rest of the time.
edit: some grammar
They're 100% gonna replace Joe. His family is discussing the future of his campaign tomorrow and they had to go "Good job, Joe! You answered all the questions!" after the debate.
As the memers say, it's Joever. Prepare for the new delegate to step in soon.
CNN muted mics and kept a tight leash on Trump. His carnival barking horseshit flinging was limited to two minutes.
Should have let him rant and rave while Biden laughs. Maybe have Biden smile and ask "you finished yet?" Or insert a jab like "the five users on Truth Social might believe a whopper like that, but here's the deal, folks..."
They're 100% gonna replace Joe. His family is discussing the future of his campaign tomorrow and they had to go "Good job, Joe! You answered all the questions!" after the debate.
As the memers say, it's Joever. Prepare for the new delegate to step in soon.
Election commissioners cannot keep a convicted felon on the ballot. They are bound by an oath not to break the law, to knowingly allow a convicted felon access or control of firearms or ammunition violates Title 18, Section 922(g) of the U.S. Code would be a felony, they would facilitating the access to arms/ammo and that would be a crime. The Constitution does not explicitly disqualify felons from holding the presidency. However, the interplay between statutory law (Title 18, Section 922(g) and the duties of the President creates a de facto disqualification. If a President cannot legally perform essential functions of the office due to their status as a felon, it presents a constitutional crisis where the statutory law effectively overrides constitutional provisions regarding presidential eligibility.
The court would then rule the statutory law as unconstitutional as *McCormack v Powell* and *US Term Limits, Inc v Thorton* have established that for an office with constitutionally defined qualifications, The Constitution is the only list of qualifications. No statutory law can supercede them.
Statutory laws often aim to promote public interest, prevent corruption, and ensure good governance. These laws can be justified if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without imposing unconstitutional qualifications.
There is a legal distinction between qualifications for office and regulations governing the conduct of officeholders. Statutory laws that regulate conduct (e.g., disclosure requirements, conflict-of-interest laws) can be upheld if they do not impose additional qualifications but rather ensure adherence to ethical standards and transparency.
While McCormack v. Powell and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton establish important precedents regarding constitutional qualifications for office, they do not categorically rule out the possibility of statutory laws that regulate aspects of the electoral process or the conduct of officeholders. Courts have the discretion to interpret statutory laws in a manner that harmonizes them with constitutional principles, considering the broader context and intent of such laws.
Its about holding Election commissioners to their oath. Kim Davis was ordered to do her job per her oath, Davis was ordered by the U.S. District Court to start issuing marriage licenses. So there is precedent. The principle of precedent, which is integral to the doctrine of stare decisis, mandates that courts must adjudicate cases with identical or similar facts in a consistent manner. Someone needs to sue the Nebraska election commissioner, so they can be held liable criminally and civilly.
Considering all the other attempts to remove him from state ballots have failed, is this really something to expend time and money and political capital on to tilt at a windmill?
Sir, this is a Valentino’s
The no buffet type though
I really like Nebraska, and the split electoral votes, but we are still only about 1% of the vote for POTUS. Ms Blood is perhaps setting up campaigning slogans and claims for the next election?
The pres debate went exactly as expected. Trump cane in, lied, and wanted and raved like a lunatic. Boden came in answered some stuff coherently and was in a sleepy daze for most of it. Still better off with a dazed stiff then a lying lunatic fraudster. How and the hell did we get here as a nation. 300+ million people in this country and this is what we get for choices. Problem is no sane person want the job of president of the United states. It's a thankless job. So the only ones that will really run are egotistical wealthy bastards.
I knew Flood's position was weak but I didn't know it was that weak. Granted, Republican dumbasses wouldn't know a "Commie" if it bit them in their fat asses.
It isn't about knowing what communism is. It's the same as what "woke" has become: A boogeyman word that signals to the group that they should think something is bad. Shit, there's a guy at the bar I tend who thinks I'm a communist because I thought it was indefensible when that group of cops beat some guy to death, in sight of his home, because he freaked out and ran from a traffic stop. Apparently thinking punishments should match the offense is communism now.
Yeah that's sounds about right. And they wonder why we just roll our eyes and say "you're an idiot". They can't argue or understand in good faith so what's the damn point?
Yeah, I used to follow the news more closely so I'd have answers to their questions thinking they were genuinely wondering what was right. I don't bother anymore. If they have to ask "What's ONE thing Trump lied about?!", they won't care what comes next, even if it's Trump himself admitting he lied. They don't have to listen to me, the media...anything. All they have to do is watch his speeches...they make no sense. He contradicts himself all the time.
Commie = Bad And you called me a dumbass
I have zero doubts Trump would be worse than the corpse of Joe Biden if elected. But try to block him from running, and I fear there will literally be blood in the streets. But after the "debate" I'm seriously just dreading November. How the FUCK is Joe Biden the best the DNC can come up with. It was a complete 180 from last time, when Biden just let Trump dig himself into holes, this time Biden torpedoed his own ship. Couldn't string together coherent sentences, and looked completely vacant the rest of the time. edit: some grammar
They're 100% gonna replace Joe. His family is discussing the future of his campaign tomorrow and they had to go "Good job, Joe! You answered all the questions!" after the debate. As the memers say, it's Joever. Prepare for the new delegate to step in soon.
CNN muted mics and kept a tight leash on Trump. His carnival barking horseshit flinging was limited to two minutes. Should have let him rant and rave while Biden laughs. Maybe have Biden smile and ask "you finished yet?" Or insert a jab like "the five users on Truth Social might believe a whopper like that, but here's the deal, folks..."
They're 100% gonna replace Joe. His family is discussing the future of his campaign tomorrow and they had to go "Good job, Joe! You answered all the questions!" after the debate. As the memers say, it's Joever. Prepare for the new delegate to step in soon.
So many people have been sold on propaganda, such a sad state we are in.
Because that's how facists would react.
What’s fascist about insisting that the pols not support felons?
Ignore the Pillsbury dough boy! He's a republican talking head.
Election commissioners cannot keep a convicted felon on the ballot. They are bound by an oath not to break the law, to knowingly allow a convicted felon access or control of firearms or ammunition violates Title 18, Section 922(g) of the U.S. Code would be a felony, they would facilitating the access to arms/ammo and that would be a crime. The Constitution does not explicitly disqualify felons from holding the presidency. However, the interplay between statutory law (Title 18, Section 922(g) and the duties of the President creates a de facto disqualification. If a President cannot legally perform essential functions of the office due to their status as a felon, it presents a constitutional crisis where the statutory law effectively overrides constitutional provisions regarding presidential eligibility.
The court would then rule the statutory law as unconstitutional as *McCormack v Powell* and *US Term Limits, Inc v Thorton* have established that for an office with constitutionally defined qualifications, The Constitution is the only list of qualifications. No statutory law can supercede them.
Statutory laws often aim to promote public interest, prevent corruption, and ensure good governance. These laws can be justified if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without imposing unconstitutional qualifications. There is a legal distinction between qualifications for office and regulations governing the conduct of officeholders. Statutory laws that regulate conduct (e.g., disclosure requirements, conflict-of-interest laws) can be upheld if they do not impose additional qualifications but rather ensure adherence to ethical standards and transparency. While McCormack v. Powell and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton establish important precedents regarding constitutional qualifications for office, they do not categorically rule out the possibility of statutory laws that regulate aspects of the electoral process or the conduct of officeholders. Courts have the discretion to interpret statutory laws in a manner that harmonizes them with constitutional principles, considering the broader context and intent of such laws.
True. Now if you could just get the supreme court to return your calls…
Its about holding Election commissioners to their oath. Kim Davis was ordered to do her job per her oath, Davis was ordered by the U.S. District Court to start issuing marriage licenses. So there is precedent. The principle of precedent, which is integral to the doctrine of stare decisis, mandates that courts must adjudicate cases with identical or similar facts in a consistent manner. Someone needs to sue the Nebraska election commissioner, so they can be held liable criminally and civilly.
Reddit lawyers are funny